A new interpretation of "Anthropocene"

 The era of mankind. 

Clive Hamilton writes about it in his book Defiant Earth. The Fate of Humans in Anthropocene.

Hamilton is a professor of public Ethics in Canberra. 

He means that  humans have modified the processes on Earth so radically that it has changed the nature forces that regulates the Earth development and forced it to an new geological epoch. 

We have to think of what to do to slow down the changes, as climate change. But we have to adapt to what is already there and will affect the Earth in many thousands of years. Can we repair what we have done? 

In the end of the book he concludes that only politics can do something about the threats that Anthropocene puts in front of us. We cannot do it individually.

Maybe the struggle that will come is the only way to learn how to live in solidarity with the Earth.

He means that it is really important that mankind will survive. We are the only creature on the planet that is intelligent and can understand something of the universe. 

In my pantheistic view, we are the eyes and ears and consciousnesses of the universe that looks at itself. 

Maybe we can change in our way of connecting with nature and the Earth. To treat it with care. To not just think about our individual selves. 

To not believe in that some Gods will save us. We have to save ourselves and we cannot do it with geoengineering or by living on another planet. 

Hamilton asks; is a civilization that destroys itself really worthy of surviving on at another planet or in a gigantic spaceship?   

Who are we? Where have we come? Where to go?

To go on like we do now is really a ruthless negligence. 

Its our civilization that is in danger. 

Here is Hamilton himself speaking:


 Its for sure important that we try to preserve humankind, as well as the trees (much more pleasant than we are) and the rest of wildlife. We have to see us as a part of nature - not a part of some God or better than the rest of nature. Because of our intelligence we have responsibility 

. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more